Category Archives: Second Amendment

Post navigation

(WXYZ) – A federal lawsuit brought on by two Michigan families and the national Second Amendment Foundation alleges the state of Michigan is violating Second Amendment rights by targeting gun owners who foster children.

The dispute centers around restrictions placed on gun owners, as to where and how they must store firearms and ammunition.

DHHS doesn’t restrict guns in the home, just access to them.

But those access restrictions are a violation, claim the plaintiffs.

One of those families suing is William and Jill Johnson of Ontonagon Michigan.

They claim DHHS won’t allow them to foster their grandson unless they restrict their access to their personal protection.

The Second Amendment Foundation says they have similar lawsuits pending in other states as well.

USA -(Ammoland.com)-Skyhorse Publishing is about to release my next book, which is devoted to great and fatal government-caused disasters. The title is . Im From the Government, and Im Here to Kill You: The Human Cost of Official Negligence, attorney and author David T. Hardy informed AmmoLand Shooting Sports News Thursday. Texas City, the Tuskegee Syphilis study, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Fast and Furious, the VA hospital scandal time after time, government employees kill Americans by negligence, stupidity, or agency corruption, and time after time they escape all legal accountability.

Hardys should be a familiar name to longtime readers of this columnists work. His contributions to advancing the right to keep and bear arms have been chronicled extensively on The War On Guns blog, which has over the years featured numerous posts on his numerous books, his groundbreaking In Search of the Second Amendment documentary, his observations on the Of Arms & the Law blog, and his legal work, including cases and law review articles.

By way of complete disclosure, Mr. Hardy has represented my interests in legal actions to obtain information from the government and is part of what a U.S. Attorney who came on board during the Obama administration has pejoratively described as a tangled web of connections between a small cadre of firearms activists.

Ill offer one other stipulation, just to make sure all cards are on the table so that any recommendations I make can be viewed with the appropriate skepticism the words of everyone with an agenda (admitted or otherwise) should be: I havent read the book.

Thats because it hasnt been released yet.

The publisher informs me that the book may be released 1-2 weeks before the official Amazon release date of October 10, Hardy advises. Amazon will begin shipping as soon as they receive the books, and October 10 only reflects the publishers guarantee that Amazon will have them by that date come hell or high water. The publisher tries to beat that date by a week or two.

So why make noise about it now?

Because you can pre-order it. And because with some authors, I have confidence and faith based on past experience. So Id like to start the buzz on this immediately, to prime gun owner rights advocates to be ready for the release by learning about the book now. As such, here are some resources you are invited to check out (and to share with those you think would be interested):

Note the website includes links to pre-order form Amazon and Barnes & Noble.

Also see:

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

In response to the Union-Sun & Journal’s recent editorial, I do believe in States rights, the need for local control and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing state rights. However, I want your readers to know my steadfast belief that states like New York should not have the ability to take away the Constitutional rights of their citizens. Under no circumstances should these basic rights be denied, and federal action is warranted in a situation where a state is infringing on the rights of any American.

The Constitution is the law of the land, and the Founding Fathers produced a document with a clear vision regarding Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment can only be interpreted one way, and that is it guarantees that Americans have the right to own a firearm.

My proposed legislation, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA), has sparked a needed conversation about the Second Amendment rights granted to Americans in the Constitution. In 2013, Governor Andrew Cuomos Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act infringed upon the rights of law-abiding New Yorkers by instituting strict rifle and shotgun regulations. As you pointed out, these regulations were put in place purely for political purposes.

SAGA focuses specifically on protecting Second Amendment rights, and in no way is taking away the rights of states. When a state crosses the line and starts to implement regulations that are in stark contrast to the basic rights given to Americans, action needs to be taken. That is exactly why I am proposing my law to rein in the unconstitutional policies that Governor Cuomo forced into law.

Governor Cuomo overstepped with the SAFE Act, and my proposal to repeal much of the law has had a great deal of support. SAGA isnt hypocritical; it is a sincere effort to bring back the freedoms given to New Yorkers by our Constitution when it comes to owning a firearm. Law abiding citizens should not be punished because of onerous and unconstitutional state regulations.

It is my duty as an elected representative to make sure my constituents are protected, and that includes protecting the basic rights granted to them in the Constitution. The SAFE Act only curbed the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding New Yorkers, instead of providing them with a safer place to live as promised by the Governor.

The SAFE Act has done nothing to help our communities and has only taken away our freedoms. It is time we end this disastrous law for all New Yorkers and revert back to what the Founding Fathers intended for our nation.

During the past few years, foster parents around the country have come forward to say they were told to give up their gunsor give up carrying them on their person for self-defenseas a way of complying with the foster care requirements for their particular state.

A Michigan coupleWilliam and Jill Johnsonare currently in the news for this very issue. During efforts to become the foster parents for their grandson, Johnson claimed the case worker talked to him about gun ownership, saying, If you want to care for your grandson you will have to give up some of your constitutional rights.

The Johnsons filed suit as a result, and even The New York Times has picked up the Johnsons story and reported it in a substantive manner.

Johnson claimed the case worker talked to him about gun ownership, saying, If you want to care for your grandson you will have to give up some of your constitutional rights.According to the Times, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services handbook for foster parents says firearms shall be stored in a locked metal or solid wood gun case, or trigger-locked and stored without ammunition in a locked area. Moreover, the Times reports that MDHHS requires all ammunition being locked up and handguns be registered.

Michigan is getting all the attention right now, but itis not the only state with anti-Second Amendment mandates tied to foster parenting.

For example, on Sept. 1, 2015, Breitbart News reported that Nevada residents Kristi and Rod Beber faced the possibility of losing their foster children because Rod grabbed a gun and ran out in the front yard to stop an alleged disturbance. The matter was handled without a shot being fired or an injury incurred, yet News 3reported that the Nevada Department of Family Services (DFS) pulled the Bebers foster license and told them Rods reaction to the disturbance did not sound like an adult exercising sound judgment.

Months earlier, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that another coupleBrian and Valerie Wilsonwere denied their request to foster parent because they both carried concealed handguns for self-defense.

The Nevada Legislature corrected these rules/requirements, but similar regulations are still in place in states throughout the country.

Consider Massachusetts, where guidelines for foster and adoptive homes say:

Any firearms located in the home shall be registered and licensed in accordance with state law. All firearms shall be trigger-locked or fully inoperable and stored without ammunition in a locked area. Ammunition shall be stored in a separate locked location.

Even states like Oklahomaconservative and pro-gun by any measuretoyed with requiring prospective foster parents to sign a weapons safety agreement, then abandoned the effort before it could become official policy.

Illinois is currently facing a lawsuit over its anti-Second Amendment foster parent requirements. Fox News reports:

Prospective Illinois foster parents must either certify that there are no firearms in their home or complete a form called the Foster Family Firearms Arrangement. That document requires a list of all guns and ammunition in the home and locations where they are stored. Would-be foster parents also must certify the guns have trigger locks and are stored unloaded, separate from ammunition and in locked containers accessible only with a key kept off the premises or on the owners person.

Its a nonsensical law that flies in the face of the Constitution. NRATV’s Grant StinchfieldOn Jan. 17 of this year, NRATVs Grant Stinchfield addressed the anti-Second Amendment regulation on firearms in the homes of foster parents in Illinois. He observed, Its a nonsensical law that flies in the face of the Constitution. He asked, Why should you give up a constitutional right when youre engaging in the charitable act of taking care of a child in need?

To Stinchfields point, why are foster parents targeted with gun control that exceeds the controls faced by other citizens? Are the states trying to discourage foster parenting, or are they just seizing an an opportunity to secure more gun control in any way they can?

The case is unfolding in Michigan and revolves aroundWilliam and Jill Johnsons efforts to care for their grandson.

On July 18 Breitbart News reported that theSecond Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed suit against the head of the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services over alleged violations of the Johnsons gun rights. William Johnson claims the case worker said, If you want to care for your grandson you will have to give up some of your constitutional rights.

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb told Breitbart News that this sacrifice of Second Amendment rights would include having no guns for self-protection at home or carried on ones person.

Now the New York Times is covering the case, which they summarize by reporting, Mr. Johnson and his wife, Jill, are suing their home state, Michigan, which bars foster parents from carrying concealed weapons. At issue is whether the states rules amount to a functional ban on owning a firearm, in violation of the Constitutions Second Amendment.

They indicate that William Johnson says he had to forfeit his carry gun under duress in order to satisfy the requirements for foster care.

UCLAs Adam Winkler spoke about the Johnsons suit, saying, This is not a case thats outlandish or off the wall. Foster parents do have constitutional rights, and they dont forsake those rights just because they become foster parents.

William Johnson is a disabled military veteran and his wife owns a fishing tackle shop. Guns have been part of their lives, both for sport and personnel protection, and hesays the area in which they live is full of bear and other predators that could easily attack him, his wife, or his grandson. Having a handgun on his person is a way to be sensibly and constitutionally prepared.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host ofBullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter:@AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

The Second Amendment is not limited to a simple sentence. It is of critical importance that it could have been left at that, a simple sentence making a straightforward declaration about a right of the people, but it was not.

A Colt M4 rifle and a button that reads I Vote Proud Washington Gun Owner.

OPINION In my lifetime gun control has become as explosive as any political issue in this country can be. To my mind, all we need to do to settle that issue once and for all is to read the Second Amendment and do what it says.

Here it is:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

One possible interpretation of that wording is that the whole rationale for a militia has been eliminated. The idea of a standing army was the single thing that struck the most fear into the hearts of those who authored the Constitution. Since they would brook no standing army, having a militia would be necessary to the security of the Union. Since we now have a standing army, plus a National Guard that has been called out in more than one time of crisis, a militia really is unnecessary. Since a militia is unnecessary, the rationalein the Amendmentfor a right to keep and bear arms no longer exists.

On the other hand, there is nothing particularly wrong with having a militia. So, why not have a well-regulated militia (or a unit of the militia) in each state? If one wanted to keep and bear arms, one would have to be a member in good standing of the militia in the state of which one was a citizen.

People who want an utterly unfettered right to keep and bear arms dont like that idea. As I understand it, they offer four main arguments to support their point of view. Those are: the original language argument; the subordinate clause argument; the protection against tyranny argument; and the self-defense argument. All of those arguments are offered in support of their contention thatthe Second Amendment asserts an unfettered right to keep and bear arms.

My understanding of those arguments leans heavily onThe Second Amendment Primer, by Les Adams, though I have also participated in discussions on this topic, including face-to-face and via the internet. In the Introduction of his book Mr. Adams informs us that he is a lawyer who had studied constitutional law in law school who was gradually led to investigate the controversy surrounding the Second Amendment. I have also readThe Bill of Rights Primer,co-authored by that same Esq. Adams and Akhill Reed Amar. In both books scholarship is on impressive display.

Related |Marijuana, Gun Control, Minimum Wage Hikes Win At The Polls

In this critique of the argument concerning original language Ill focus on three terms, militia, well regulated, and security. Esq. Adams also talked about bear arms, but I wont bother with that. I suppose any term in the Amendment could be subject to debate, but Ill limit myself to three.

Mr.s Adams and Amar make the case that originally the right to keep and bear arms was a political right accruing to the people as a whole. According to them, it was widely thought at that time that the militia referred to all arms-bearing citizens, which in turn could be all adult malesthough some states would pass laws prohibiting people of (relatively recent) African heritage, even freemen, to own guns. The Constitution makes it very clear, however, that a/the militia was a specific organization (a point Ill revisit below).

As for well regulated, despite any talk of originalism, its meaning doesnt appear to have actually evolved. Esq. Adams says that then and there it meant well functioning and leaves it at that, but when it comes to organizations that is still what well regulated means. The U.S. Army, for example, has a whole book of Regulations for the sole purpose of ensuring that it will function well as an army.

There is another word in the amendment that I think bears some examination, even though it is one Mr. Adams and others, in my experience, ignore. That word is security. When I remembered the amendment, having read it some time ago, I remembered that word as defense, but the word in the amendment is definitely security.

It sounds too contemporary to be in that document. Why did they use that word instead of defense? As noted, the idea of a militia was prompted by the fear of a standing army. With no standing army, if the nation was attacked by a foreign power, an armed, well-regulated militia would be necessary for its defense. So why did they use security instead?

I submit that the answer lies in Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, where the powers of Congress are enumerated, as in Congress shall have the power to. It then lists quite a few Tos. In one of them the militia is indisputably referred to as an organization: organizing it, funding it, etc.

That the Constitution addresses the militia in its original text, before the Bill of Rights was added to it, is not something people who want an unfettered right to keep and bear arms emphasize. Altogether, in the two books authored by Mr. Adams that point of interest is mentioned oncein the one he co-authored with Mr. Amar.

One of the powers explicitly given to Congress is To provide for calling forth the militia tosuppress Insurrections. Im saying that is why security is in the Second Amendment, not defense. Security includes defending democratic government against armed insurrection by people who, unable to prevail to their satisfaction politically, would use arms to impose their point of view on everyone else.

That brings us to the protection against tyranny argument. Some people would have us believe that the people who wrote the Constitution to institute a new government put the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights to ensure that there would be people with guns available to perpetrate at their discretion in an armed insurrection against the government.

Related |The Facts That Neither Side Wants To Admit About Gun Control

That never made much sense to me. For sure, then as now, there were people who thought such protection against tyranny is a good thing, but the Constitution makes it clear that facilitating armed insurrection is not the purpose for having the militia. Tyranny has made an entrance more than once in human history through an armed insurrection.

Most fundamentally, this nation was founded on the proposition that power is the enemy of justice. No person, group, or organization is to be trusted with unfettered power.

Justice is all about containing power, keeping it on a leash, regulating it. That is why distrust of governmental power is completely validand a concern that I, a rationalist who is neither a conservative nor a liberal nor an adherent of any other ideology, share. [On my Web site,www.ajustsolution.com, I have a proposal for separating the power of printing money from government (andthe banking system)which would allow us to end all taxation and public debt, among other good things it would accomplish.]

Gun advocate Luke Crawford displays his rifle across his chest in protest at a gun control rally at the Georgia State Capitol in Atlanta. (Jaime Henry-White/AP)

Governmental power is not the only kind of power that exists, however. Having money is a form of power, too, which is one reason why many other people and I distrust Big Business. Having a gun in your hand is also a form of power. That is why many other people and I want to regulate in some way the ownership of guns.

Actually, for many who argue for an unfettered right to keep and bear arms any discussion of a/the militia is beside the point, anyway. Thats because all of that is contained, they say, in a subordinate clause. It is their contention that a subordinate clause, being subordinate, is of little or no importance compared to the main clause.

I am genuinely embarrassed for lawyers who would say such a thing and mean it. In the first place, I challenge anyone to show me any document ever written by any lawyer that didnt contain at least one subordinate clause in every sentence. Would they call those clauses meaningless verbiage? They would not.

In the English language subordinate clauses have always mattered, including the place and time of the writing of the Constitution. Those who suggest otherwise are confusing one of the words we use to describe the parts of a sentence with the more common meaning of the word subordinate.

In grammar, a clause is designated as being subordinate because it cannot stand alone as a complete sentence unto itself. It would make no sense to write, A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.

On the other hand, consider writing, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That can stand alone as a sentence and make perfectly good sense. Grammatically, that is why that part of the Second Amendment is called a main clause.

Yet, the Second Amendment is not limited to that simple sentence. It is of critical importance that it could have been left at that, a simple sentence making a straightforward declaration about a right of the people, but it was not.

The authors of the Second Amendment wanted to say something more. They wanted to relate that right to something else. That is why they added a subordinate clause that did not have to be there in order for the Second Amendment to be grammatically and logically correct. If anything, that enhances the importance of that subordinate clause. It obviously refers to the militia of Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution.

That does not quite exhaust the arguments of those who want an unfettered right to keep and bear arms, however. Finally, we have the self-defense argument.

Plain and simply, that is not mentioned in the Second Amendment. Shame on the strict constructionists, much less the originalists among us who bring that topic into the discussion.

Related | Gun Control After Sandy Hook: Is There A Middle Ground?

Mr. Adams does include quite a few quotes from people who have supported a right to keep and bear arms on that ground. Many people may have voted for it on that ground. For one thing, there was no such thing as a police department in that place (or anywhere in Europe) at that time.

That does not make self-defense part of the Second Amendment as it was written. Just as the authors of that amendment could have left out the subordinate clause they included in it, they could have included a clause about self-defense, but did not.

In support of his point of view Mr. Adams does quote eight (but only eight) state constitutions that include a right to keep and bear arms. Only one of the eight includes any mention of self-defense.

In the primer on the Bill of Rights Esq. Adams co-authored, they discuss how the Fourteenth Amendment extended the applicability of the Bill of Rights to the individual states and suggest that it changed the focus of the intent of the right in question to self-defense. They argue that much of that change in focus had to do with allowing people of (relatively recent) African heritage to defend themselves against racists. What gun-hating Liberal could argue with that?

Whatever anyone else may say, and for whatever reason, I say the Fourteenth Amendment did not change the wording of the Second Amendment or explicitly introduce wording into the Constitution to change the intent of the Second Amendment. It still has all the same wordsand no morewith that pesky subordinate clause that did not have to be there still there.

So, let each state have a well-regulated militia (or a unit of the militia). While, again, Article I of the Constitution grants explicit powers to Congress regarding any militia, surely there is room in there for each state to specify what kind(s) of guns the members of the militia in that state may keep and bear, and whether a gun can be kept at homeor on ones personor not. To own a gun of any kind, however, a person would have to be a member in good standing of the militia in the state of which one was a citizen.

Stephen isa lifetime student of history, philosophy, and economics (with an M.A. in the last of those subjects) who has published essays and articles in various media, print and on-line (to include an academic journal,Contemporary Philosophy), and a book,A Just Solution.

The views expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect Mint Press News editorial policy.

The gun rights group is warning law-abiding armed citizens that their civil rights could be in jeopardy due to that states restrictive gun control laws.

SAF founder and executive vice president Alan Gottlieb observed:

The California Legislature has been out of control for years when it comes to placing restrictions on the Second Amendment rights of honest citizens. Right now, I wouldnt suggest to any gun owner that they even travel through the state, much less to it as their final destination.

Lawmakers in Sacramento either ignored or have forgotten that in 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment in SAFs landmark case ofMcDonald v. City of Chicago. The Second Amendments protection of the right to keep and bear arms applies to state and local governments, but they seem rather oblivious to that fact in the halls of Californias Legislature.

He added:

If you are licensed to carry in your home state, that license is not recognized in California. It doesnt matter how many background checks youve gone through or whether you took a gun safety course. Your license is no good in the Golden State, which suggests that your safety and the safety of your family are of no concern to state lawmakers or city administrators. You could be prosecuted for having a gun for personal protection, or you might get killed because you didnt.

Gottlieb is spot on. California refuses to recognize any concealed carry permit other the one they issue. This is an expression of Democratic hegemony whereby they have made concealed carry licenses extremely difficult for Californians to acquire fewer than 100,000 Californians have a license and they do not want to provide a means for additional law-abiding citizens to be armed via reciprocity.

What does this mean? It means that when a visitor from another state drives into California, he is not supposed to be armed, regardless of the number of out-of-state concealed permits he possesses or the risks associated with being defenseless. None of these things matter because the Democrats have spoken.

Gottliebs verdict: By not going to California, the life you save may be your own.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host ofBullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter:@AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

A July 30 opinion writer stated that the Second Amendment was originally meant for militia, now expanded to self defense.

In 1791, George Mason asked, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. He also wrote … that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty …

Patrick Henry said, The great object is, that every man be armed … Everyone who is able may have a gun.

In the Federalist No. 28, Alexander Hamilton, wrote, If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no course left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.

The opinion writer also stated, The founders understood that majority rule had its dangers … That is why we are not a democracy, but are, in the words of Ben Franklin, A republic, if you can keep it.

The Constitution provides an amendment process that allows for additions and adjustments. From privates to presidents, all public servants swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies. As someone who has sworn that oath twice, I find it curious that the writer, who has sworn that same oath, would describe the Constitution as deeply flawed.

This week, Congressman Chris Collins (R-NY) introduced legislation that would shield popular rifles and shotguns, including the AR-15, from being banned under state laws. The bill, known as the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA), would also protect parts for these firearms, including detachable magazines and ammunition feeding devices.

The bill is a response to antigun laws in a small handful of states including California, Connecticut, D.C., Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York that criminalize the mere possession of highly popular semiautomatic long guns widely available throughout the rest of the country. Although rifles or shotguns of any sort are used less often in murders than knives, blunt objects such as clubs or hammers, or even hands, fists, and feet, gun control advocates have sought to portray the banned guns as somehow uniquely dangerous to public safety.

Anti-gunners focus on these so-called assault weapons was renewed after the U.S. Supreme Courts 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. That decision made clear that handguns by far the type of firearm most commonly used in crime were subject to Second Amendment protection and could not be banned. This led gun control advocates to seek out other sorts of guns to demonize, and theyve since been strenuously promoting the myth that semiautomatic rifles and shotguns with certain features such as detachable magazines, pistol grips or adjustable stocks are weapons of war with no legitimate civilian use.

Yet Americans overwhelmingly choose these types of firearms for legitimate purposes, including protection of their homes and properties, three-gun and other practical shooting sports, and hunting and pest control. And, indeed, the states legislative attempts to ban these guns has spurred a market for innovative products that use the same basic calibers and firing mechanisms, but with stock, grip, and accessory configurations that comply with legislative guidelines.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to review any of these state bans, lower courts have come up with increasingly strained readings of the Second Amendment and Supreme Court precedents to try to justify them. The Seventh Circuit, for example, held that even if a ban’s incursion on Second Amendment rights had no beneficial effect on safety whatsoever, it could still be justified on the basis of the false sense of security it might impart to local residents with exaggerated fears of the banned guns. [I]f it has no other effect,” the majority opinion stated, the challenged ordinance may increase the public’s sense of safety. Thats hardly an acceptable offset for the infringement of a constitutional right.

Members of the Supreme Court have criticized their colleagues for failing to review these cases and the lower courts for misapplying Supreme Court precedent. As noted in a dissent filed by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined by Hellers author, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. Under our precedents, Thomas concluded, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.

With states violating Americans rights and federal courts allowing them to act with impunity, it is up to Congress to ensure that all Americans, wherever they may live, have access the best, most modern and innovative firearms for their lawful needs, including the protection of themselves and their families.

The SAGA would ensure that state regulations could not effectively prevent the manufacture, sale, importation, or possession of any rifle or shotgun lawfully available under federal law or impose any prohibitive taxes, fees, or design limitations on such firearms.

The NRA thanks Rep. Chris Collins for leading this important effort and urges his colleagues to cosponsor and support this staunchly pro-gun legislation.

Please contact your U.S. Representative and ask him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 3576, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act. You can call your U.S. Representative at 202-225-3121.

A couple of Second Amendment stories to get your weekend started. The first has to do with the apparently endless debate over so-called smart guns and the efforts by #2A opponents to mandate the clunky and still basically experimental technology on the entire country. There was an event in Washington, D.C. this week where a group of gun control enthusiasts enlisted the aid of sympathetic law enforcement officers to push for the use of such technology by the nations police departments. It was organized by Washington CeaseFire and they were pushing the idea that smart guns which recognize the fingerprints of the cops who use them wouldnt be stolen and put to use by the bad guys. Meanwhile, they would work just fine when the police officers need them.

As Dan Spencer at RedState was quick to point out, this may sound nice in theory, but it simply doesnt work that way in the real world.

Smart guns can be hacked. In fact, just last week, a hacker rendered the technology in a leading German-manufactured smart gun completely useless. He could extend the firing range beyond the allowed distance, jam the gun from firing in the hands of its user or even disable the smart mechanism completely to fire it himself

For the IP1, the smart gun offers its owner nothing more than the appearance of security. Yet, the German manufacturers marketing claimed that the gun would usher in a new era of gun safety.

If theres one thing that law enforcement needs in the field, its reliability. Unfortunately, smart gun technology doesnt offer that. Until it does, we cannot even consider it, regardless of the stats or stunts that activists push.

The hacking question is certainly a valid one (and it remains a growing concern in all aspects of IT far beyond firearms) but its hardly the only issue. Plenty of experts have reviewed most of these guns before and found other, more fundamental problems. The time it takes for the weapon to initialize so that it recognizes the owner can be far too long. And a delay in being able to deploy your firearm in a critical law enforcement situation can add up to some dead cops pretty quickly. Also, some models have inherent flaws which allow the safety features to be disabled by someone with very little in the way of expertise. In short, this technology remains far from being ready for prime time. Its bad enough that some legislators want to mandate it for private use, but forcing this on law enforcement is simply a disaster waiting to happen.

Not all of the #2A news is bad, however. The National Rifle Associations Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) reports that New York Congressman Chris Collins has introduced new legislation which would standardize gun control laws across the country for popular rifles and shotguns, including specific parts for such firearms. Named the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA), the bill will be of particular interest to owners of so-called assault rifles such as the AR-15.

The bill is a response to antigun laws in a small handful of states including California, Connecticut, D.C., Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York that criminalize the mere possession of highly popular semiautomatic long guns widely available throughout the rest of the country. Although rifles or shotguns of any sort are used less often in murders than knives, blunt objects such as clubs or hammers, or even hands, fists, and feet, gun control advocates have sought to portray the banned guns as somehow uniquely dangerous to public safety

The SAGA would ensure that state regulations could not effectively prevent the manufacture, sale, importation, or possession of any rifle or shotgun lawfully available under federal law or impose any prohibitive taxes, fees, or design limitations on such firearms.

The NRA thanks Rep. Chris Collins for leading this important effort and urges his colleagues to cosponsor and support this staunchly pro-gun legislation.

Its a fine idea in theory, but given the Supreme Courts stubborn reluctance to say much of anything about the inherent nature of Second Amendment rights since Heller, its tough to predict how they might react. The entire states rights issue inevitably gets dragged into the question, despite the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is supposed to universal. The court has similarly been vague at best when it comes to questions of modifications to firearms such as larger capacity magazines, suppressors and adjustable stocks.

Still, Ill join with the NRA in thanking Congressman Collins and his co-sponsors for at least making the effort. The Senate Democrats will probably doom it to failure before it gets off the ground, but if nothing else it might bring the argument back to the forefront for voters as we approach the midterms.

Ive noticed something about being in the gun industry. Everyone has a story, and more often than not they are more than willing to share it with you. Well I would like you to meet Antonia Okafor and her story. Antonia is a black woman who is often criticized and belittled because of her beliefs. Mainly because she is a major advocate for the Second Amendment. She is the founder of emPOWERed, which is an organization aimed at bringing campus carry to colleges around the country. As a woman who went to college and also as a woman who has had her own experiences where I realized how important self-defense was, I could totally get behind this.

Recently Antonia wrote an article for the illustrious New York Times about why she carries a gun to school. Me being the common sense, gun loving, Second Amendment advocate that I am LOVED it. Even more so that it was attached to something that was near and dear to my heart, New York.

I thought this was awesome, living in New York City, its not often you see a pro 2A article in any newspaper from here. After reading the article I did something I normally do after reading an article, I read the comments.

What I saw in those comments honestly disturbed me on so many different levels. The comments that I read were from mostly men telling her that she shouldnt be able to keep her guns, telling her shes not strong enough and that she would be overpowered anyway and shot with her own firearm so dont even try.

Praying they werent in the same parking lot as her in fear she would accidentally shoot them because of her emotional instability. Men who were envisioning her attack and telling her to be more realistic about her protection choices. Well guess what, THIS IS REALISTIC. This is the reality for so many women.

I consider myself an old age feminist, where I believe I can do anything a man can do. Which includes taking her own self-defense into her own hands. I think what bothered me most about those comments were theyre written by the very people who claim to praise women and respect their choices. But because a WOMAN wants to exercise her Constitutional right that they dont agree with, now shes suddenly weak, uneducated, nave, and even mentally ill.

The women fighting for our Second Amendment right have a much larger fight than we all may realize. Were fighting to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States and were also fighting for our rights as women. Its a disgrace that an educated, respected woman is accused of being a pawn for the NRA and being told to depend on college escort programs, which essentially means relinquishing your ability to defend yourself to some college campus peace officer, which is also probably a male. No thanks. Ill continue exercising my rights how I see fit, which includes the first AND second Amendments.

Antonia, like so many other women in the gun industry are often criticized, ridiculed and belittled often by people who scream womens rights. If theres one thing I have to say to ANYONE who claims they are a feminist or a womans right activist is this; If you want the government to stay out of my body, then dont tell me how to defend my body.

Roll Call reports that Moore was at the club on Thursday responding to a constituents question as to whether he supported the Second Amendment. Moore responded by saying, We carry, and pulling a handgun out of his wifes purse.

UNITED STATES AUGUST 3: GOP candidate for U.S. Senate Roy Moore returns his wifes hand gun to her after displaying it as a way to show support for the 2nd amendment after candidates were asked about their views on gun rights during a candidates forum in Valley, Ala., on Thursday, Aug. 3, 2017. The former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court is running tin the special election to fill the seat vacated by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)

The gun was a snub-nose revolver that appeared to be made of lightweight materials for concealed carry.

Moore then handed the gun back to his wife so she could tuck it back into her purse. He later said, I will uphold the SecondAmendment.

The 70-year-old Moore is a former Alabama Supreme Court Justice. He is vying for a Senate seat currently held by Republican Luther Strange. Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) is trying to win Stranges seat as well, which makes the primary election extremely important.

All three men claim to be pro-Second Amendment and Rep. Brooks has released a number of ads focused on his pro-gun stance.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host ofBullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter:@AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Washington, DC, residents, you dont have to holster your Second Amendment rights anymore. Unfortunately, residents of many other states like California dont have the same ability that DC residents now do to protect themselves.

In a stirring victory for those who live in the nationals capital, a panel of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals recently threw out a DC ordinance that denied concealed carry permits to anyone who could not show a special need for self-defense, what is referred to as a good reason requirement. The problem is that other courts of appeal have upheld such restrictive laws and the U.S. Supreme Court has turned down appeals of those decisions, refusing to take up the issue of the Second Amendments application to carrying a weapon outside of the home.

This happened most recently at the very end of the Supreme Courts 2017 term in June when it refused to take upPeruta v. California,an appeal of a decision of the Ninth Circuit upholding Californias good reason requirement.

In a scathing dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas (joined by Neil Gorsuch) castigated the other justices for treating the Second Amendment as a disfavored right.”He said it was long-past time for the Court to decide this issue and that he found it “extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen.

In theopinionover the District of Columbias concealed carry law written by Judge Thomas Griffith of the DC Circuit, Griffith pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Courts first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment occurred in 2008 inDistrict of Columbia v. Heller, where the Court threw out DCs complete ban on handguns as unconstitutional.

That decision is younger than the first iPhone. The Supreme Court did not outline how the Second Amendment applies to the carrying of a weapon in public, but as Griffith says,Hellerreveals the Second Amendment erects some absolute barriers than no gun law may breach.

AfterHeller,DC implemented a complete ban on concealed carry. That was struck down in 2014 inPalmer v. District of Columbia. DC responded by restricting concealed carry permits only to those who could show a good reason to fear injury. That required showing a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community as supported by evidence of specific threats or previous attacks.

Living in a high-crime neighborhoodwasnta good enough reason for a concealed carry permit under DCs regulation. In essence, you had to prove you had a good reason to exercise your constitutional right, a bizarre situation unique in American constitutional jurisprudence.

DC argued, absurdly enough, that its ordinance did not violate any constitutional right because the Second Amendment doesnt apply outside of the home.

Judge Griffith dismissed this claim, saying that the fact that the need for self-defense is most pressing in the home doesnt mean that self-defense at home is the only right at the [Second] Amendments core.

Obviously, the need for self-defense might arise beyond as well as within the home. Further, the Second Amendments text protects the right to bear as well as keep arms. Thus, it is natural that the core of the Second Amendment includes a law-abiding citizens right to carry common firearms for self-defense beyond the home.

Even underHeller, governments can apply regulations on the possession and carrying of firearms that are longstanding, such as bans on possession by felons or bans on carrying near sensitive sites such as government buildings. But preventing carrying in public is not a longstanding tradition or rule.

This opinion goes into detail discussing the long American and English history applicable to weapons and self-defense, going back as far as the Statute of Northampton of 1328 whose text, as the court says, will remind Anglophiles of studying Canterbury Tales in the original. But the state of the law in Chaucers England or for that matter Shakespeares or Cromwells is not decisive here.

What is decisive is that the Supreme Court established inHellerthat by the time of the Founding, the preexisting right enshrined by the Amendment had ripened to include carrying more broadly than the District contends based on its reading of the 14th-century statute. According to Griffith, The individual right to carry common firearms beyond the home for self-defense even in densely populated areas, even for those lacking special self-defense needs falls within the core of the Second Amendments protections.

Unfortunately, other federal courts of appeals have upheld similar good reason laws for concealed carry permits. But as Judge Griffith points out, those courts dispensed with the historic digging that would have exposed that their toleration of regulations restricting the carrying of a weapon is faulty.

The constitutional analysis that should be applied to all government gun regulations is that they must allow gun access at least for each typical member of the American public. Because DCs restrictive good reason concealed carry law bars most people from exercising their Second Amendment right at all, it is unconstitutional. At a minimum, the Second Amendment must protect carrying given the risks and needs typical of law-abiding citizens.

The court drew together all the pieces of its analysis in this way:

At the Second Amendments core lies the right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, subject to longstanding restrictions. These traditional limits include, for instance, licensing requirements, but not bans on carrying in urban areas like D.C. or bans on carrying absent a special need for self-defense. In fact, the Amendments core at a minimum shields the typically situated citizens ability to carry common arms generally. The Districts good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on exercises of that constitutional right for most D.C. residents. Thats enough to sink this law under Heller I.

One of the judges on the DC panel, Karen LeCraft Henderson, dissented, arguing that the core right in the Second Amendment is only to possess a firearm in ones home and she saw no problem with DCs good-reason requirement.

That dissent, along with the contrary decisions of other appeals courts, shows why the Supreme Court needs to follow Justice Thomass admonition and finally settle this issue. As Thomas scolds in his dissent inPeruta:

For those of us who work in marble halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it.

Some American political and human events in history are intentionally overlooked by those responsible for teaching and analyzing them.

The nation rightfully celebrates the civil rights movement and the March on Selma. Our children are taught about womens suffrage and Susan B Anthony. The left loves to evoke memories of the Vietnam antiwar demonstrations. Modern day movements such as gay and transgender rights, the Womens March, and the Occupy movements are celebrated in the media.

How many of you have ever heard about the major event that occurred in our country that shows the importance of your Second Amendment rights? The “Battle of Athens” was the perfect example of why our founding fathers were so brilliant as to include “the right to keep and bear arms” in our Constitution.

On August 1, 1946, there was a primary election in McMinn County, Tennessee. The two major towns in the county are Athens and Etowah. Political corruption and election fraud were concerns of the local citizens. The United States Department of Justice even investigated the allegations in the three elections prior. During those elections, most of McMinn Countys young men were off fighting World War II. There was even an incident where two servicemen home on leave were shot and killed by the sheriffs deputies.

At the end of the war, approximately 3,000 experienced veterans returned to McMinn County. The GIs had known about the troubles back home, even while fighting overseas. They were not happy about what had been going on. They organized and actually put forth an “all G.I.” political ticket for the primary. These ex-servicemembers promised fair elections and ballot counts.

In response, the local sheriff brought in 200 armed deputies. Poll observers, mostly GIs, were intimidated and beaten. One poll watcher was even shot. Multiple other incidents occurred and the sheriff decided to take the ballot boxes to the jail for counting.

Not trusting the sheriff, the local veterans gathered firearms and ammunition. After organizing and planning, they surrounded the jail. There was many exchanges of gun fire. Sometime during the early morning hours of August 2, the GIs made their move. Using dynamite to damage the building, they forced the surrender of those inside. The GIs posted guards to secure the ballots. When the votes were counted, the corrupt officials had been voted out.

I encourage you to research and share this event as a celebration and illustration of law-abiding American citizens using our Constitutionally-protected firearms for the betterment of our society and protection of our freedom.

The Battle of Athens is a major event in American history that is wrongly ignored by our educational system, our media, and our government officials. That alone should demonstrate why we Second Amendment supporters should hold the event up for all to see.

Use the Battle of Athens as an example to show your children what free men should be willing to do to protect that freedom.

Use the Battle of Athens to demonstrate to the media why gun control is antithetical to the Constitution and our freedoms.

Use the Battle of Athens to let our leaders know that we are in charge.

John Cylc is an eight year U.S. Army veteran. He is also a contributor to LifeZette. To read more of his reports Click Here Now.

Washington, D.C. residents, you dont have to holster your Second Amendment rights anymore. Unfortunately, residents of many other states like California dont have the same ability that D.C. residents now do to protect themselves.

In a stirring victory for those who live in the nationals capital, a panel of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals recently threw out a D.C. ordinance that denied concealed-carry permits to anyone who could not show a special need for self-defense, what is referred to as a good reason requirement. The problem is that other courts of appeal have upheld such restrictive laws and the U.S. Supreme Court has turned down appeals of those decisions, refusing to take up the issue of the Second Amendments application to carrying a weapon outside of the home.

This happened most recently at the very end of the Supreme Courts 2017 term in June when it refused to take up Peruta v. California, an appeal of a decision of the Ninth Circuit upholding Californias good reason requirement.

In a scathing dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas (joined by Neil Gorsuch) castigated the other justices for treating the Second Amendment as a disfavored right. He said it was long-past time for the Court to decide this issue and that he found it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen.

In the opinion over the District of Columbias concealed carry law written by Judge Thomas Griffith of the D.C. Circuit, Griffith pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Courts first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment occurred in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller, where the Court threw out D.C.s complete ban on handguns as unconstitutional.

That decision is younger than the first iPhone. The Supreme Court did not outline how the Second Amendment applies to the carrying of a weapon in public, but as Griffith says, Heller reveals the Second Amendment erects some absolute barriers than no gun law may breach.

After Heller, D.C. implemented a complete ban on concealed carry. That was struck down in 2014 in Palmer v. District of Columbia. D.C. responded by restricting concealed-carry permits only to those who could show a good reason to fear injury. That required showing a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community as supported by evidence of specific threats or previous attacks.

Living in a high-crime neighborhood wasnt a good enough reason for a concealed-carry permit under D.C.s regulation. In essence, you had to prove you had a good reason to exercise your constitutional right, a bizarre situation unique in American constitutional jurisprudence.

D.C. argued, absurdly enough, that its ordinance did not violate any constitutional right because the Second Amendment doesnt apply outside of the home.

Judge Griffith dismissed this claim, saying that the fact that the need for self-defense is most pressing in the home doesnt mean that self-defense at home is the only right at the [Second] Amendments core.

Obviously, the need for self-defense might arise beyond as well as within the home. Further, the Second Amendments text protects the right to bear as well as keep arms. Thus, it is natural that the core of the Second Amendment includes a law-abiding citizens right to carry common firearms for self-defense beyond the home.

Even under Heller, governments can apply regulations on the possession and carrying of firearms that are longstanding, such as bans on possession by felons or bans on carrying near sensitive sites such as government buildings. But preventing carrying in public is not a longstanding tradition or rule.

This opinion goes into detail discussing the long American and English history applicable to weapons and self-defense, going back as far as the Statute of Northampton of 1328 — whose text, as the court says, will remind Anglophiles of studying Canterbury Tales in the original. But the state of the law in Chaucers England or for that matter Shakespeares or Cromwells is not decisive here.

What is decisive is that the Supreme Court established in Heller that by the time of the Founding, the preexisting right enshrined by the Amendment had ripened to include carrying more broadly than the District contends based on its reading of the 14th-century statute. According to Griffith, the individual right to carry common firearms beyond the home for self-defense even in densely populated areas, even for those lacking special self-defense needs falls within the core of the Second Amendments protections.

Unfortunately, other federal courts of appeals have upheld similar good reason laws for concealed carry permits. But as Judge Griffith points out, those courts dispensed with the historic digging that would have exposed that their toleration of regulations restricting the carrying of a weapon is faulty.

The constitutional analysis that should be applied to all government gun regulations is that they must allow gun access at least for each typical member of the American public. Because D.C.s restrictive good reason concealed-carry law bars most people from exercising their Second Amendment right at all, it is unconstitutional. At a minimum, the Second Amendment must protect carrying given the risks and needs typical of law-abiding citizens.

The court drew together all the pieces of its analysis in this way:

At the Second Amendments core lies the right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, subject to longstanding restrictions. These traditional limits include, for instance, licensing requirements, but not bans on carrying in urban areas like D.C. or bans on carrying absent a special need for self-defense. In fact, the Amendments core at a minimum shields the typically situated citizens ability to carry common arms generally. The Districts good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on exercises of that constitutional right for most D.C. residents. Thats enough to sink this law under Heller I.

One of the judges on the D.C. panel, Karen LeCraft Henderson, dissented, arguing that the core right in the Second Amendment is only to possess a firearm in ones home and she saw no problem with D.C.s good-reason requirement.

That dissent, along with the contrary decisions of other appeals courts, shows why the Supreme Court needs to follow Justice Thomass admonition and finally settle this issue. As Thomas scolds in his dissent in Peruta:

For those of us who work in marble halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it.

Hans A. von Spakovsky is a Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and former Justice Department official. He is coauthor of Whos Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk.

Congressman Chris Collins (NY-27) has proposed new measures for protecting Second Amendment rights by introducing legislation to limit states authority when it comes to regulating rifles and shotguns, commonly used by sportsmen and sportswomen.

The Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA) would prevent states from implementing any regulations on these weapons that are more restrictive than what is required by federal law. Upon passage of this bill, most of the language included in New York States Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act of 2013 signed into law by Gov. Andrew Cuomo would be void.

This legislation would protect the Second Amendment rights of New Yorkers that were unjustly taken away by Andrew Cuomo,Collins said.I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment and have fought against all efforts to condemn these rights. I stand with the law-abiding citizens of this state that have been outraged by the SAFE Act and voice my commitment to roll back these regulations.

Governor Cuomos SAFE Act violates federal regulation and the following provisions would be void under the proposed legislation:

-The Cuomo SAFE Act banned the capacity of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.It further limited magazines to seven rounds at any time.

In the Collins bill, States or local governments would not be able to regulate, prohibit, or require registration and licensing (that are any more restrictive under Federal law) for the sale, manufacturing, importation, transfer, possession, or marketing of a rifle or shotgun. Additionally, rifle or shotgun includes any part of the weapon including any detachable magazine or ammunition feeding devise and any type of pistol grip or stock design.

Under this legislation, any current or future laws enacted by a state or political subdivision that exceeds federal law for rifles and shotguns would be void. Should a state violate this law, and a plaintiff goes to court, the court will award the prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorneys fee in addition to any other damages.

Congressman Collins was joined today by local, county, and state elected officials and citizen supporters of the Second Amendment during events to unveil his bill in Erie and Monroe counties.

Hamburg Rod and Gun Club:

Assemblyman David DiPietro

Erie County Sheriff Tim Howard

Erie County Comptroller Stefan Mychajliw

Erie County Legislator Ted Morton

Representatives from SCOPE

Rochester Brooks Gun Club:

Senator Rich Funke

Senator Rob Ortt

Assemblyman Peter Lawrence

Monroe County Legislator Karla Boyce

Representatives from SCOPE

To read the text of H.R. 3576, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act, clickhere.

If youve heard of Brazilian jiu-jitsu, mixed-martial arts or the UFC, the reason is Royce Gracie. In the early 1990s, his dominance of the octagon brought his familys style of jiu-jitsu into the American mainstream, and the martial art has become immensely popular around the world ever since. In addition to his hand-to-hand combat skills, Gracie is also a fan of firearms and the Second Amendment. Shooting Illustrated Editor-in-Chief Ed Friedman sat down with Gracie to discuss his career, his love of freedom and his interest in guns.

SI: How did you get interested in firearms?

Royce Gracie: Growing up in Brazil, my dad had a few guns on our farm. Its part of martial arts. Sure, they say its empty hands, but so many styles use weapons, so its part of the martial arts culture. When I came to America and saw the freedom that we have, I was blown away. Back in the early days, we had a friend who would take us to the range, and wed shoot 100 rounds through a .45 ACP 1911. Our goal was to make the bullseye disappear, and I got the shooting bug. Shooting is an art. You need to know what youre doing, how to be safe, to recognize the skill needed to control that power. Its a lot like martial arts in that way.

SI: What makes someone who is so skilled in unarmed self-defense feel the need to own firearms?

Royce Gracie: What if theres more than one person? What if the adversary is armed? If its just one guy whos not armed, yeah, I can take care of him. But what if he pulls a gun? What if theres more than one attacker and they have knives? What happens if theres a terrorist attack? Ive got a mentality that Im going to try to stop an attack no matter what, but if hes got a gun, thats suicidal if Im not armed. Also, if a criminal is attacking other people, its not always feasible for even someone with my skills to stop that attack without a firearm.

Attackers arent going to make it a fair fight. They launch surprise assaults; they try to take you out to get to your family or your property. Its not the octagon. Theres no referee. And if he pulls a weapon, hes not just trying to fight mehes trying to kill me. At that point, youd be crazy to try to go hand to hand. I have a gun to defend myself if the situation escalates like that.

SI: Tell me a little about the situation in Brazil as it pertains to gun ownership and crime.

Royce Gracie: Brazil never had the degree of freedom we have in the U.S., but you used to be able to buy some guns. There were restrictions, but there were shops we could go to. Then, they essentially banned civilian ownership guns in what they said was an effort to fight crime. That resulted in the criminals arming themselves to the teeth. I mean, they had RPGs and machine guns. They get it from corrupt officials. Violence got out of control after that. It was like the law switched to protect the bad guys. So at the same time they disarmed the law-abiding citizens, they made life easier on the criminals. The murder rate went through the roof. Its so bad, the prisoners in jails get better food than the police!

SI: Why do people sign up for your classes? What is it about Brazilian jiu-jitsu that is so popular?

Royce Gracie: The main reason people go to any martial arts school is to gain confidence by learning skills. They may have had something happen to them or seen a situation that they didnt know how to react to. That stays with themthey dont go right away to learn about self-defense, but that thought stays filed away. Then one day a friend will say Hey, Im learning this martial art; lets go check it out. Then they go to class and start to get the hang of it. Its a lot of the same reasons why people buy a gun for the first time. People realize theyre vulnerable, but it often takes a while. Its not like they see a fight and say, I need to learn a martial art, but a while later that thought comes to the front and they sign up for a class. Its really all about the skills you need to be confident. Parents sign their kids up for the same reason; for the confidence that can come with the discipline that martial arts provide.

SI: What can people expect to learn in a Royce Gracie-taught class?

Royce Gracie: I teach them self-defense. I dont teach competition. Martial arts were made to defend yourself. A lot of schools teach you how to score points, but thats not real life. Competition can ruin a martial art. I teach how to defend yourself in a street-fight situation. Why do you buy a gun? Sure, there are a small number of people who want to be the best competitive shooter in the world, but for most of us, its for self-defense. And maybe that leads to competition, which is fine, but thats not why you signed up for a martial arts class or why you bought that first gun.

SI: What drew you to the NRA? How important is the Second Amendment to you?

Royce Gracie: TheNational Rifle Associationis the front line of keeping my right to keep and bear arms. Thats the way I look at it. I really respect the NRA, because I know from experience, from what happened to Brazil, how important the Second Amendment is. It is my right to defend myself, and the NRA makes sure that right will be there. Look what happened when they took those rights away in Brazil, in Venezuelait is vital to keep that right.

Want to take a class with Royce Gracie? VisitNRACarryGuardExpo.comtoday to sign up for the (limited-space) Brazilian jiu-jitsu class he will teach at the inaugural Carry Guard Expo in Milwaukee, WI, Aug. 25 to 27. Gracie will teach paying attendees several moves that could come in handy should you find yourself in a close-quarters criminal attack. He will also be signing autographs at the show. In addition, there will be seminars from world-class instructors like Steve Tarani, Travis Doc T and many others, so you wont want to miss the best event for those interested in self-defense.

Congressman Chris Collins (R, NY-24) said Monday he will introduce a bill to repeal the portions of the SAFE Act which most impact sportsmen and women. (WHAM photo)

Honeoye Falls, N.Y. (WHAM) – Opponents of New York state’s controversial SAFE Act are turning to Congress for help.

Congressman Chris Collins (R, NY-24) said he will introduce a bill to repeal the portions of the SAFE Act which most impact sportsmen and women.

The SAFE Act – which became law in 2013 – lumps the shotguns and rifles used by hunters and sportsmen in with all handguns, including those Governor Cuomo called assault weapons.

“This is the first time I can remember any legislation that was more harmful to law-abiding citizens – legally – than it is to criminals,” said Tim Andrews of SCOPE.

“Governor, you are on notice. We are going to repeal and declare, null-and-void, your SAFE Act,” Collins told a cheering crowd at Rochester Brooks Gun Club in Honeoye Falls.

On Monday afternoon, Collins unveiled the bill, which he refers to as SAGA – the Second Amendment Guarantee Act.

“Knowing the members as I do, we will have overwhelming support on this bill,” Collins said while visiting the Rochester Brooks Gun Club. “Certainly, the minute they find out that the NRA and SCOPE may well be scoring this related to their Congressional score card, we’ll get universal support.”

SAGA seeks to limit a state’s ability to regulate or impose penalties on rifles and shotguns. For example, the SAFE Act Provision limiting rifles to 10 rounds would be replaced with federal standards which currently do not have a limit. Yet it will have no impact on magazine restrictions for handguns.

“It’s a good start and better than trying to wait for the whole enchilada,” said Gary Zelinski of Canandaigua. “You’ve got to do something at this point.”

New York courts have upheld the SAFE Act, and Republican proposals at the state level – including one to exempt upstate – will not pass without the support of Assembly Democrats from downstate.

“They have a different view on gun ownership,” said Senator Rob Ortt (R) Niagara County. “Many of them equate it with crime. We equate the Second Amendment with freedom.”

State Senator Rich Funke said, “This federal legislation may well be what we need to restore the freedom New Yorkers have enjoyed for centuries.”

The bill asks conservative Republicans to limit the rights of states, but Collins predicted the bill will have the support it needs. “We’re not going to allow a state to stomp on your rights for religion, and we’re not going to let them stomp on the Second Amendment, and that’s the difference,” said Collins. “It is state’s rights until they override a constitutional amendment.”

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo issued a statement Monday afternoon, blasting the bill as a, “blatant political ploy,” and, “disturbing.”

On May 9, 2017, the Indiana Supreme Court resolved a long-standing dispute in Indiana:

May a police officer detainan individual in possession of a firearm in order to verify that the person’s possession of the gun is lawful?

In Pinner v. State, the court ruled that the mere possession of a gun, without some additional indication that the possession is illegal, does not justify a police officer in conducting an “investigatory stop” of the individual to check to see if the person has a License to Carry Handgun or that the person’s possession of the firearm is otherwise lawful. And since the possession of a gun alone does not justify a stop – it also does not justify a search of the individual as part of a “stop & frisk.”

Now,Indiana Attorney GeneralCurtis Hillis asking the United States Supreme Court to accept a case that originated in West Virginia, Shaquille Robinson v. U.S..and urging SCOTUS to create a similar rule for the country as a whole thatIndiana adopted in the Pinner case.

In Robinson, a witness called authorities to report that he had seen a man in a parking lot of a 7-Eleven loading a gun and placing that gun into his pocket. The witness gave a description of the armed man and the car he got into in the parking lot. Officers then pulled over the car – purportedly because neither Robinson nor the female driver were wearing a seatbelt – and asked Robinson to exit the vehicle. When asked if he was armed, Robinson did not respond verbally but gave the officer “a weird look.” At this point, Robinson was directed to place his hands on the roof of the vehicle,he was searched, and the officer recovered a handgun from his pocket. Robinson was arrested, prosecuted and convictedunder federal law for illegal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the primary issue was whether police had the legal right to search Robinson during the traffic stop. Robinson argued that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights, since the police officers were acting only on a tip that he was armed and had no reason to believe that his possession of a firearm was illegal or that he was a danger to the officers at the time of the stop. In ruling that the search was legal and upholding Robinson’s conviction, the Fourth Circuit held that the mere possession of a firearm is sufficient for a police officer to fear for his safety and justifies a search of the person who is reportedly armed — even with no reason to believe that the person’s possession of the firearm is illegal.

Now, Indiana is among five states (including Michigan, Utah, Texas and West Virginia) who have filed an “amicus curiae” (friend of the court)brief, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to grant Robinson’s petition for certiorari and to review the case.

In the brief, Indiana argues that the Fourth Circuit’s ruling “forces an individual to choose between her right to bear arms under the Second Amendment and her right to be free from searches under the Fourth Amendment.” In effect, Indiana is now asking SCOTUS to adopt arule very similar to the ruling of the Indiana Supreme Court inthis year’s Pinner case – that the mere possession of a firearm is not sufficient to justify a stop or a searchof a person by a police officer without some other reason to believe that the armed person is committing a crime or is a danger to the officer.

Hoosiers should be proud that the State of Indiana, through our Attorney General, is taking a stand in support of our Constitutional rightsnot only our right to bear arms, but our right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizuresrecognizing that a person who chooses to exercise his Second Amendment rights should not automatically forfeit his rights under the Fourth Amendment.

Guy A. Relford

Guy A. Relford is a Second Amendment attorney in Carmel, Indiana. He is also the owner and chief instructor of Tactical Firearms Training, LLC in Indianapolis and the author of Gun Safety & Cleaning for Dummies (Wiley & Sons Publications, 2012). He hosts The Gun Guy with Guy Relford on WIBC radio in Indianapolis.

If youve heard of Brazilian jiu-jitsu, mixed-martial arts or the UFC, the reason is Royce Gracie. In the early 1990s, his dominance of the octagon brought his familys style of jiu-jitsu into the American mainstream, and the martial art has become immensely popular around the world ever since. In addition to his hand-to-hand combat skills, Gracie is also a fan of firearms and the Second Amendment. Editor-in-Chief Ed Friedman sat down with Gracie to discuss his career, his love of freedom and his interest in guns.

SI: How did you get interested in firearms?

Royce Gracie: Growing up in Brazil, my dad had a few guns on our farm. Its part of martial arts. Sure, they say its empty hands, but so many styles use weapons, so its part of the martial arts culture. When I came to America and saw the freedom that we have, I was blown away. Back in the early days, we had a friend who would take us to the range, and wed shoot 100 rounds through a .45 ACP 1911. Our goal was to make the bullseye disappear, and I got the shooting bug. Shooting is an art. You need to know what youre doing, how to be safe, to recognize the skill needed to control that power. Its a lot like martial arts in that way.

SI: What makes someone who is so skilled in unarmed self-defense feel the need to own firearms?

Royce Gracie: What if theres more than one person? What if the adversary is armed? If its just one guy whos not armed, yeah, I can take care of him. But what if he pulls a gun? What if theres more than one attacker and they have knives? What happens if theres a terrorist attack? Ive got a mentality that Im going to try to stop an attack no matter what, but if hes got a gun, thats suicidal if Im not armed. Also, if a criminal is attacking other people, its not always feasible for even someone with my skills to stop that attack without a firearm.

Attackers arent going to make it a fair fight. They launch surprise assaults; they try to take you out to get to your family or your property. Its not the octagon. Theres no referee. And if he pulls a weapon, hes not just trying to fight mehes trying to kill me. At that point, youd be crazy to try to go hand to hand. I have a gun to defend myself if the situation escalates like that.

SI: Tell me a little about the situation in Brazil as it pertains to gun ownership and crime.

Royce Gracie: Brazil never had the degree of freedom we have in the U.S., but you used to be able to buy some guns. There were restrictions, but there were shops we could go to. Then, they essentially banned civilian ownership guns in what they said was an effort to fight crime. That resulted in the criminals arming themselves to the teeth. I mean, they had RPGs and machine guns. They get it from corrupt officials. Violence got out of control after that. It was like the law switched to protect the bad guys. So at the same time they disarmed the law-abiding citizens, they made life easier on the criminals. The murder rate went through the roof. Its so bad, the prisoners in jails get better food than the police!

SI: Why do people sign up for your classes? What is it about Brazilian jiu-jitsu that is so popular?

Royce Gracie: The main reason people go to any martial arts school is to gain confidence by learning skills. They may have had something happen to them or seen a situation that they didnt know how to react to. That stays with themthey dont go right away to learn about self-defense, but that thought stays filed away. Then one day a friend will say Hey, Im learning this martial art; lets go check it out. Then they go to class and start to get the hang of it. Its a lot of the same reasons why people buy a gun for the first time. People realize theyre vulnerable, but it often takes a while. Its not like they see a fight and say, I need to learn a martial art, but a while later that thought comes to the front and they sign up for a class. Its really all about the skills you need to be confident. Parents sign their kids up for the same reason; for the confidence that can come with the discipline that martial arts provide.

SI: What can people expect to learn in a Royce Gracie-taught class?

Royce Gracie: I teach them self-defense. I dont teach competition. Martial arts were made to defend yourself. A lot of schools teach you how to score points, but thats not real life. Competition can ruin a martial art. I teach how to defend yourself in a street-fight situation. Why do you buy a gun? Sure, there are a small number of people who want to be the best competitive shooter in the world, but for most of us, its for self-defense. And maybe that leads to competition, which is fine, but thats not why you signed up for a martial arts class or why you bought that first gun.

SI: What drew you to the NRA? How important is the Second Amendment to you?

Royce Gracie: The National Rifle Association is the front line of keeping my right to keep and bear arms. Thats the way I look at it. I really respect the NRA, because I know from experience, from what happened to Brazil, how important the Second Amendment is. It is my right to defend myself, and the NRA makes sure that right will be there. Look what happened when they took those rights away in Brazil, in Venezuelait is vital to keep that right.

Want to take a class with Royce Gracie? Visit NRACarryGuardExpo.com today to sign up for the (limited-space) Brazilian jiu-jitsu class he will teach at the inaugural Carry Guard Expo in Milwaukee, WI, Aug. 25 to 27. Gracie will teach paying attendees several moves that could come in handy should you find yourself in a close-quarters criminal attack. He will also be signing autographs at the show. In addition, there will be seminars from world-class instructors like Steve Tarani, Travis Doc T and many others, so you wont want to miss the best event for those interested in self-defense.